Archive for May, 2009

Intention behind the law misunderstood
BRAVE NEW WORLD
BY AZMI SHAROM
14 May 2009 – the Star

There are limits to freedom, and the Constitution allows for these. However, those limits are subject to certain over-arching protective principles.

SOME things are impossible to understand. For example, how on God’s sweet earth could Tottenham Hotspur in their last game against Manchester United go from leading 2-0 at half time to losing 2-5 at full time?

And this is not the first time we’ve done it. A few years ago, we were leading 3-0 at half time only to lose 3-5.

My Liverpool-supporting friends were flabbergasted as Spurs, by their total and complete implosion, have probably destroyed Liverpool’s last hope of winning the Premier League this season.

They tried to make sense of it, but we long-suffering Spurs men and women know that some things just can’t be understood.

But there are some things which must be understood. It is in fact imperative that we understand them. And these pertain to things in our country. Yet, sadly, it appears that some of us can’t.

I am referring here to the Sedition Act and the Police Act. Both, in my opinion, have been totally abused in the last few weeks because those with the power to use them simply did not understand them.

Allow me to explain. The Sedition Act is a remnant of the bad old British days. The English introduced the law to quash dissent among the people who were opposing the Malayan Union, namely the Malayan left.

One would have thought that we would have got rid of this law, seeing as how its formation was for the purpose of oppressing some of the heroes of our independence. But, strangely, we have kept it.

Now, as appalling as this law is, it is not the blunderbuss that the Internal Security Act is. You don’t have the discretion to use the Sedition Act willy-nilly like you can the ISA.

Why Sedition Act is the new ISA
By Syed Jaymal Zahiid and Melissa Loovi
9 May 2009 – Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 9 — The recent spate of arrests made under the Sedition Act has led opposition leaders and lawyers to unanimously conclude that the government might have found a better tool than the Internal Security Act (ISA) to quell dissent.

The continued use of the ISA, condemned locally and internationally, does not appear to be politically tenable. This week, a number of activists and opposition party leaders were detained under the Sedition Act.

Many Barisan Nasional (BN) component party leaders have also joined their Pakatan Rakyat (PR) counterparts in calling for the government to abolish the British-inherited law. Umno is the only party that believes that the unpopular law should be maintained.

The Sedition Act is, however, perceived to be less oppressive than the ISA but yet drafted in such a way that it gives the government absolute power to make arrests on its political enemies.

According to section 4 (1) of the Sedition Act, a person is considered to have committed an offence under this law if he or she attempts to do, or make any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or would, if done, have a seditious tendency.

It further read that any person is found to have committed an offence under this law if he or she utters any seditious words, prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes, or reproduces any seditious publications or imports any seditious publications.

Yet in all of this, there is no real and clear definitive guideline as to what constitutes sedition.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, who is also a lawyer, said such a vague law lends the authorities indefinite power to silence the opposition.

Friends, Malaysians, Countrymen and Countrywomen, One colour is taboo in Malaysia today.

Wearing that colour has now been known to invite arrest. It is so taboo that a good citizen like me will not even mention its name. I shall sheepishly call it the opposite of white.

Surely we can’t lock someone up unless he or she is a serious and immediate threat to society, I hear you ask. What have these people done?

These people have a view, and publicly displayed their view. They also encouraged and urged others to join them. In Malaysia, if the view is disliked enough by the government, doing so is called incitement or (if it is said to touch on certain subjects) sedition.

How can that be a crime, you innocently ask again. How can they (the authorities) do this to people just because these people are promoting a contrary view?

Ah, but it is not really “they” (i.e. those who have nothing to do with us) who are doing this. It is the persons whom we (i.e. the majority of us) have chosen who are doing this. So do not wash your hands off it yet.

May 7 is an opposite-of-white day for Malaysia. What transpired in the Perak State Assembly is a mockery of democracy. There was no sign of anything “by the people” or “for the people”. It was all down the throat of the people.

It was winning at any cost.

As if that was not bad enough, what happened outside the assembly turned ridiculousness into madness. Many were arrested and detained just for advocating a view, denied access to lawyers, and then five lawyers who were trying to provide legal assistance to the detainees were themselves arrested. What’s next? Arrest doctors who try to give medical assistance to opponents of the government?Continue reading ‘The opposite of white — 1FEAR MALAYSIA’

Under the doctrine of separation of power, upon which the Malaysian Constitution is founded, neither the Executive, nor the Judiciary can meddle into the affairs of the legislature.

The Barisan Nasional (BN) government has probably scored another first in the world. It has sent its police force to enter a state legislative assembly hall to physically haul the sitting speaker out of the assembly hall and escort another speaker of its choice to take over the empty seat during a melee. Through this act, BN claimed that it has successfully ousted the Pakatan Rakyat speaker V. Sivakumar.

We have seen scuffles between opposing legislators in legislative assemblies in other parts of the world, notably in Taiwan and South Korea. And we have also seen Sergeants-at-arms getting physical in such situations. But I don’t believe there is a precedent anywhere that the police force enters a legislature to take control of events – least of all, physically evicting an incumbent speaker and physically installing a new speaker from the opposing camp, like what happened in the Perak state assembly on May 7.

Under the doctrine of separation of power, upon which the Malaysian Constitution is founded, neither the Executive, nor the Judiciary can meddle into the affairs of the legislature. As the supreme body of a government and as an independent institution, the legislative assembly enjoys autonomy and has always been meticulously out of bounds to the police force.Continue reading ‘Perak debacle – an unforgivable violation of the constitution’